PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Gallagher, James [R-CA-1] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 24, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10089 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10089 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10089 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10089 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Representation Act would require states to identify communities with shared characteristics before redrawing U.S. House district boundaries. States generally would have to keep those communities within one district, with exceptions for population requirements, voting-rights requirements, or preserving another community. Residents could propose communities for consideration, and the officials drawing districts would have to explain any splits publicly.
This Act may be cited as the Representation Act.
Prior to any congressional redistricting conducted by a State, the entity responsible for developing congressional redistricting plans in the State shall— (A) identify and document communities of interest within such State, which may be provided in accordance with State law; (B) accept and publish each proposed community of interest submitted by a resident of such State; and (C) consider adding each such proposed community of interest to the communities of interest documented under subparagraph (A).
A congressional redistricting conducted by a State may not divide a community of interest documented under paragraph (1)(A) into multiple congressional districts unless such division is necessary— (A) to ensure that congressional districts in such State have substantially equal populations as required by law; (B) to comply with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.); or (C) to preserve another community of interest in a single congressional district.
the entity responsible for developing congressional redistricting plans in the State shall make publically available— (A) a written justification for any instance where a community of interest documented under paragraph (1)(A) is divided into multiple congressional districts;
The bill defines a “community of interest” as a geographically connected population sharing cultural, historical, economic, or social characteristics. Examples include language, education patterns, religion, and civic identity.
In this section, a community of interest means a geographically connected population with shared cultural, historical, economic, or social characteristics, including language, education patterns, religious affiliation, or civic identity.
Before congressional redistricting, the responsible state entity would have to identify and document communities of interest, which may be provided under state law. It would also have to accept, publish, and consider every community proposed by a state resident. Consideration would be required; acceptance into the documented list would not be automatic.
Prior to any congressional redistricting conducted by a State, the entity responsible for developing congressional redistricting plans in the State shall— (A) identify and document communities of interest within such State, which may be provided in accordance with State law; (B) accept and publish each proposed community of interest submitted by a resident of such State; and (C) consider adding each such proposed community of interest to the communities of interest documented under subparagraph (A).
A state could split a documented community among congressional districts only when necessary to meet legally required population equality, comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or keep another community of interest in one district.
A congressional redistricting conducted by a State may not divide a community of interest documented under paragraph (1)(A) into multiple congressional districts unless such division is necessary— (A) to ensure that congressional districts in such State have substantially equal populations as required by law; (B) to comply with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.); or (C) to preserve another community of interest in a single congressional district.
By the date a district plan is finalized, the responsible entity would have to publish written reasons for each split of a documented community and describe how it considered residents’ proposals. If one community was split to preserve another, it would also have to explain why that split was necessary and why the preserved community took priority.
Not later than the date a congressional redistricting plan in a State is finalized, the entity responsible for developing congressional redistricting plans in the State shall make publically available— (A) a written justification for any instance where a community of interest documented under paragraph (1)(A) is divided into multiple congressional districts; (B) a description of the process used to consider adding proposed communities of interest under paragraph (1)(C); and (C) in the case that a community of interest documented under paragraph (1)(A) is divided into multiple congressional districts under paragraph (2)(C), an explanation as to— (i) why the division was required to preserve the other community of interest in a single congressional district; and (ii) why the preserved community of interest was prioritized over the divided community of interest.
An individual living in a documented community split among congressional districts could sue the state in any U.S. district court to enforce the bill’s restriction on splitting communities.
An individual who resides in a community of interest documented under subsection (a)(1)(A) that has been divided into multiple congressional districts in a State may bring a claim against the State in any district court of the United States for enforcement of the prohibition in subsection (a)(2).
An individual living in a submitted but undocumented community could sue the entity drawing districts in any U.S. district court. The person could seek a court declaration that the entity failed to consider the proposal, an order requiring consideration, and—if the community remained undocumented afterward—an order requiring a public explanation of that decision. These listed remedies would require consideration and explanation, rather than automatic inclusion.
An individual who resides in a proposed community of interest submitted under subsection (a)(1)(B) that has not been documented under subsection (a)(1)(A) in a State may bring a claim in any district court of the United States against the entity responsible for developing congressional redistricting plans in the State for— (A) a declaratory judgment that such entity failed to consider such proposed community of interest as required in subsection (a)(1)(C); (B) an order requiring such entity to consider such proposed community of interest as required in subsection (a)(1)(C); and (C) if the proposed community of interest is not documented under subsection (a)(1)(A) following such consideration, an order requiring publication by such entity of a justification for the decision not to document such proposed community of interest.
The Election Assistance Commission would have to develop standards and tools for mapping communities of interest and make them available to states.
The Election Assistance Commission shall develop and make available to States standards and tools for mapping communities of interest.
The supplied action snapshot, updated August 24, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on August 13, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-24T18:06:37Z. 2026-08-13: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-08-13: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying spending materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Generally applicable community protections and access to court remedies do not alone constitute targeted benefits. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 24, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI